SF Whole Foods to Close Due to Increased Crime in Area(nationalreview.com)
nationalreview.com
SF Whole Foods to Close Due to Increased Crime in Area
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/whole-foods-in-downtown-san-francisco-closes-due-to-spiraling-crime/
40 コメント
When I lived in the ghetto you could go up to a window with bars and ask for something behind the counter. I wonder if they could put all the food behind bulletproof glass with an attendant and have the attendant slide it through a prison style food tray or something? You could prepay using an industrial grade impact resistant point of sale machine on the other side, and stainless steel floors with drains could be used to wipe the grime down daily and make it easy to flush out anyone camping inside.
because the source is notorious partisan bullshit vendor and whatever the actual cause of a closing of a random store, you can’t take them at face value. Remember the shoplifting epidemic at CVS which caused them to close stores in SF? Turned out that story was right-wing bullshit. Surprise, surprise.
> because the source is notorious partisan bullshit vendor ... Turned out that story was right-wing bullshit.
CNN may be a notorious partisan bullshit vendor, but there isn't anyone who is going to call them "right-wing" with a straight face.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/11/business/san-francisco-wh...
CNN may be a notorious partisan bullshit vendor, but there isn't anyone who is going to call them "right-wing" with a straight face.
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/11/business/san-francisco-wh...
Thank you
[deleted]
Is it the real reason though? There was the Walgreens that claimed to close due to crime but later admitted it wasn't just due to crime like they originally claimed.
Gotta be skeptical of this narrative. A lot of crime-hating HNers lap this up.
Gotta be skeptical of this narrative. A lot of crime-hating HNers lap this up.
Man those horrible yuppies on HN who hate crime
Uhm, I think it is fairly normal to not like crime.
But most of them group a lot of things under "crime." For instance, drug use. Not saying that's great, but they equate walking past needles to violence.
You do realize that where there are consumers, there are also sellers?
I have no expertise on the subject, but it takes none to figure out that with drug trade comes a ton of other issues that normal people rather not would like to be exposed to.
I have no expertise on the subject, but it takes none to figure out that with drug trade comes a ton of other issues that normal people rather not would like to be exposed to.
Yes I know but I've walked in some of the places I've seen people complain about (in Seattle) and the picture painted with the fearful comments doesn't match up with reality. Just because someone feels like they are in horrific danger doesn't mean it's true. They could just be scared.
I don’t think it’s hard to understand that people who do not behave in ways that are socially unacceptable almost everywhere else in the world might feel apprehensive and on guard in a place where there are large numbers of people behaving in in ways that is socially unacceptable almost everywhere else in the world.
Of course they are scared. Because even if they are not in danger in a given moment, in another moment they could be if you are among people who act outside the norm.
Of course they are scared. Because even if they are not in danger in a given moment, in another moment they could be if you are among people who act outside the norm.
I used to live in Trinity Place. It was surrounded by ground zero tenderloin zombies. I can’t imagine why the dipshits at Whole Foods decided opening a “flagship” store there was a smart idea?
Oh it's just partisan political bullshit you say? Enjoy your low crime rate in SF then. Just the other day Bob Lee got stabbed to death near SoMa but oh no it's just the repubs spinning the news for their gain!
The crime rate in SF is historically low, one crime occurring has nothing to do with the crime rate, facts don’t care about your feelings, sorry
The crime rate in San Francisco is statistically low because what is considered a crime in other areas is not considered a crime in San Francisco.
https://startupdreams.substack.com/p/what-the-stats-about-cr...
https://startupdreams.substack.com/p/what-the-stats-about-cr...
I am sure that SF could claim a cow is a chicken and write it into the local laws as such. However, convincing people outside of your city limits that cows are really chickens is a tad more difficult.
Why would I waste my time convincing someone who doesn’t live here that the things they believe about my city are incorrect? If you don’t like it, don’t come here.
I have been there several times recently and quite a few times in the last 30 years. What I believe about your city comes from what I have seen myself, so even if you did try to convince me you would not be successful.
You really think it’s reputation wasn’t earned?
You really think it’s reputation wasn’t earned?
I wonder if this is similar to when Walgreens said they shut down their stores because of crime, but that this was actually just a cover reason for poor store performance.
Here's an NYT article on Walgreens admitting as much [1]:
"A Walgreens executive said this week that the company, which cited “organized” shoplifting as a reason to close five stores in San Francisco in October 2021, might have overstated the effect of theft on its business.
“Maybe we cried too much last year,” James Kehoe, the company’s chief financial officer, said during a Walgreens earnings call with investors.
Mr. Kehoe also said that the company had “probably” spent too much on security measures and that it might have mischaracterized how much theft took place in its stores...
The San Francisco Police Department’s data on shoplifting did not support Walgreen’s explanation for the store closings, according to an October 2021 analysis by The San Francisco Chronicle. The analysis said that while not all shoplifting incidents were reported to the police, one of the stores that closed had only seven reported shoplifting incidents in 2021 and a total of 23 since 2018."
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shopli...
Here's an NYT article on Walgreens admitting as much [1]:
"A Walgreens executive said this week that the company, which cited “organized” shoplifting as a reason to close five stores in San Francisco in October 2021, might have overstated the effect of theft on its business.
“Maybe we cried too much last year,” James Kehoe, the company’s chief financial officer, said during a Walgreens earnings call with investors.
Mr. Kehoe also said that the company had “probably” spent too much on security measures and that it might have mischaracterized how much theft took place in its stores...
The San Francisco Police Department’s data on shoplifting did not support Walgreen’s explanation for the store closings, according to an October 2021 analysis by The San Francisco Chronicle. The analysis said that while not all shoplifting incidents were reported to the police, one of the stores that closed had only seven reported shoplifting incidents in 2021 and a total of 23 since 2018."
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/06/business/walgreens-shopli...
The comments during the Walgreens investor call referred to the nationwide total and not specific to SF. There are stats specific to SF stores showing them to be a lot worse than other stores. These were presented at SF City Hall.
[deleted]
"Increased drug use and crime near the Whole Foods on Eighth and Market, which opened just one year ago, contributed to the store’s closing"
First of all, what a dead stupid place to open a Whole Foods. Second, drug use isn't causing any problems. Actual crime, the kind with victims, is surely a huge problem. But ingesting drugs doesn't cause problems automatically. Forcing people to engage with the black market, and buy impure drugs, and do them on the street? Yeah, that can cause problems. But the simple act of getting intoxicated is not the problem that needs solving. That will always happen. Th problem is how mind-bogglingly stupid we are with how we deal with this fact.
First of all, what a dead stupid place to open a Whole Foods. Second, drug use isn't causing any problems. Actual crime, the kind with victims, is surely a huge problem. But ingesting drugs doesn't cause problems automatically. Forcing people to engage with the black market, and buy impure drugs, and do them on the street? Yeah, that can cause problems. But the simple act of getting intoxicated is not the problem that needs solving. That will always happen. Th problem is how mind-bogglingly stupid we are with how we deal with this fact.
> Second, drug use isn't causing any problems.
What? For a retailer, having druggies standing around outside the store absolutely causes problems, of the form of lower sales.
In which place are you living in where shoppers don't mind engaging with drugged-out people just to get in the store?
What? For a retailer, having druggies standing around outside the store absolutely causes problems, of the form of lower sales.
In which place are you living in where shoppers don't mind engaging with drugged-out people just to get in the store?
You don't even know what a druggie looks like. You're surrounded by druggies. You work with druggies. You just don't like the ones who don't have somewhere nice to go to do their drugs out of your sight.
> You don't even know what a druggie looks like. You're surrounded by druggies. You work with druggies. You just don't like the ones who don't have somewhere nice to go to do their drugs out of your sight.
As you point out, I don't care about druggies unless they're in my face. I also don't care about people having sex unless they're doing it at the entrance to a grocery store.
IOW, I'm okay with people doing whatever the hell they want to as long as I don't have to watch it. Most people feel this way; I'm not alone.
So what's your problem with that attitude? Why even respond?
As you point out, I don't care about druggies unless they're in my face. I also don't care about people having sex unless they're doing it at the entrance to a grocery store.
IOW, I'm okay with people doing whatever the hell they want to as long as I don't have to watch it. Most people feel this way; I'm not alone.
So what's your problem with that attitude? Why even respond?
I'm also surrounded by people who shit and piss. That doesn't mean it's okay to hang around a store entrance doing that.
Hey look, you can learn a lot from a dummy*:
HUMAN:
What's wrong with the following argument?
"People who complain about druggies who hang around store entrances and such have no empathy. They have no idea what druggies look like. In fact, druggies are everywhere that you don't even know about. Your neighbor, friend or relative could be a druggie. Therefore it's okay for people to sit on the ground doing drugs around store entrances, bus stops, park benches and other public places."
GPT4:
There are several issues with the argument presented:
- False equivalence: The argument equates people who complain about drug users hanging around store entrances with a lack of empathy. It is possible to have empathy for someone struggling with addiction while still being concerned about the impact of their behavior on public spaces.
- Stereotyping: The argument assumes that people who complain about drug users in public spaces have no idea what drug users look like. This is a sweeping generalization that may not be true for everyone who expresses concern about the issue.
- Red herring: The argument brings up the fact that drug users could be anyone, including a neighbor, friend, or relative. While this may be true, it doesn't address the main concern of people who complain about drug users in public spaces, which is typically related to safety, cleanliness, or public order.
- Non-sequitur: The conclusion that it's okay for people to use drugs in public spaces because drug users could be anyone is a non-sequitur. The fact that drug users can be anyone does not justify their behavior in public spaces or negate the concerns of people who complain about the issue.
The argument could be improved by acknowledging the concerns of those who are worried about drug users in public spaces and offering potential solutions or compromises, instead of dismissing their concerns as a lack of empathy.
--
* Famous line from the US DoT's 1980's TV campaign promoting the wearing of seat belts, featuring crash test dummies.
Hey look, you can learn a lot from a dummy*:
HUMAN:
What's wrong with the following argument?
"People who complain about druggies who hang around store entrances and such have no empathy. They have no idea what druggies look like. In fact, druggies are everywhere that you don't even know about. Your neighbor, friend or relative could be a druggie. Therefore it's okay for people to sit on the ground doing drugs around store entrances, bus stops, park benches and other public places."
GPT4:
There are several issues with the argument presented:
- False equivalence: The argument equates people who complain about drug users hanging around store entrances with a lack of empathy. It is possible to have empathy for someone struggling with addiction while still being concerned about the impact of their behavior on public spaces.
- Stereotyping: The argument assumes that people who complain about drug users in public spaces have no idea what drug users look like. This is a sweeping generalization that may not be true for everyone who expresses concern about the issue.
- Red herring: The argument brings up the fact that drug users could be anyone, including a neighbor, friend, or relative. While this may be true, it doesn't address the main concern of people who complain about drug users in public spaces, which is typically related to safety, cleanliness, or public order.
- Non-sequitur: The conclusion that it's okay for people to use drugs in public spaces because drug users could be anyone is a non-sequitur. The fact that drug users can be anyone does not justify their behavior in public spaces or negate the concerns of people who complain about the issue.
The argument could be improved by acknowledging the concerns of those who are worried about drug users in public spaces and offering potential solutions or compromises, instead of dismissing their concerns as a lack of empathy.
--
* Famous line from the US DoT's 1980's TV campaign promoting the wearing of seat belts, featuring crash test dummies.
I am not the original commenter by I will freely admit that I neither like nor dislike people who do drugs outside of my line of sight when shopping…or doing anything. I will also freely admit that I definitely do not like passed out heroin users in my vicinity when shopping…or frankly when I am doing anything. Perhaps I am alone in my prejudice.
> Second, drug use isn't causing any problems.
Tell that to those unfortunate WF employees who must clean out used needles and other paraphernalia from rest rooms.
Tell that to those unfortunate WF employees who must clean out used needles and other paraphernalia from rest rooms.
That's not a problem with people simply doing drugs, it's a problem with people not having the means to do drugs in a private space, like 90% of druggies do everyday.
Being near intoxicated people, whether you agree or not, is unpleasant to many shoppers and especially families. Perhaps they are misguided but it is not good for business. You can call it wrong but I will shop pretty much anywhere alone no matter how drug infested , but will alter my shopping patterns in the city when with women or children in order to reduce their exposure to areas of known heavy intoxicant use.
0% chance there is “increased” crime at this location since the Whole Foods opened up, everyone knows this has long been one of the worst parts of SF, nothing new here
Is it impossible simply opening WF increased crime as it is a perfect shoplifting target? I saw a youtube video linked (sorry lost it, somebody here maybe point it out) where a guy bike touring SF literally pointed out how it was a perfect spot to shoplift and he constantly saw people doing it there.
I guess, on a narrow technical basis? But the article is trying to imply SF is “getting worse,” because right wing media believe SF is perpetually “getting worse”, but everyone who actually lives here already knew this is and has been one of the worst neighborhoods in SF.
So, sure, the Whole Foods opening could mean that some of the neighborhood’s crime was happening in the Whole Foods. But nothing about the neighborhood has changed recently that would have caused that.
Should also point out that DA Brooke Jenkins, who is far to the right of every elected official in the city and ran on giving the cops carte blanche to just throw everyone on the street in this neighborhood in jail, has not done anything to change it. And she’s been the DA since the Whole Foods opened. So, I don’t know what that tells you.
So, sure, the Whole Foods opening could mean that some of the neighborhood’s crime was happening in the Whole Foods. But nothing about the neighborhood has changed recently that would have caused that.
Should also point out that DA Brooke Jenkins, who is far to the right of every elected official in the city and ran on giving the cops carte blanche to just throw everyone on the street in this neighborhood in jail, has not done anything to change it. And she’s been the DA since the Whole Foods opened. So, I don’t know what that tells you.
please don’t link to partisan political bullshit
The story seems real no matter where it is plastered; https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/11/business/san-francisco-wh...
It's good to sometimes get out of your bubble, dude.
Which was flagged with 80+ upvotes and buried. Why an article about trade between Ancient Rome and India is front page worthy on Hacker News (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35516231), but the largest grocery store in the global hub of the tech industry closing because too many people are robbing it and doing drugs outside the front door, is a mystery to me. But I don't control the algorithms.